Do morals come into play when drafting FF players? (1 Viewer)

[dickey moe]

Will Michael Vick's troubles, even if he plays this year in the NFL, convince you not to draft him for one of your teams? Have you EVER not drafted a player because of their troubles off the field (e.g., Michael Irvin, Ray Lewis, Jamal Lewis, Chris Henry, others), even if it looks likely that they will suit up and play games during a season?

Talking strictly for moral reasons here, not because the player may represent low value for a FF team because they might miss games.

 

[Brutis]

morals, shmorals. If he can score fantasy points and help my team win then I have his back.

 

[duaneok66]

tough one . . .

it is true that none of us are perfect, but it's hard for me to cheer for someone who's favorite statement is "I love me some me!!"

 

[IM666]

I seem to recall the advice/rant "You play to win the game!"

 

[tomarken]

Good question. Previously I would have said morals have nothing to do with it, I draft the best team I can to win. I think I'm still of that opinion. But someone posted in another thread that part of the fun of FF is rooting for your guys on Sundays, and he wouldn't be able to root for Vick, which made sense to me as well. I'd still grab Vick if he fell far in the draft and presented an unbelievable value, but I might look to trade him or something. I definitely won't be targeting him in any drafts, and I'd hate to have to root for him during the season. I don't think I'd be able to look my dogs in the eye.

 

[BeTheMatch]

I'd rather lose with players I like than win with players I hate. I'll never have Michael Vick on my team again.

 

[Dexter Manley]

I really don't understand this 'If I can't root for them, I won't draft them mentality.' I'm a huge Redskins fan and I absolutely hate the Dallas Cowboys. When I think of the great evils in this world, the Nazis, al quaeda, death squads in Somalia, and the Dallas Cowboys immediately come to mind. That's how much I absolutely hate this team.

So what am I going to do, take all the cowgirls off my draft board? &%#@ that. As someone else in this thread already stated, YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!

I'll draft any scumbag/cowboy (redundant I know) if they're the next best available player on my board. And if I do have a scumbag(s) on my team, I'll just make light of the situation. If I had Randy McMichael on my team, for example, and he laid a goose egg one game, I'd probably say something like, 'Damn he sucks. Mrs. McMichael is going to have a rough night tonight.'

Morality should have no bearing on who you draft. If it does, then you're not a shark, imo. You aren't marketing a real team here, it's fantasy.

The only thing I worry about when drafting scumbags is the legal ramifications, and possible suspensions by the NFL.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

You aren't marketing a real team here, it's fantasy.The only thing I worry about when drafting scumbags is the legal ramifications, and possible suspensions by the NFL.

This is how I approached it in the Vick Indicted thread that tomarken mentioned above. but mad sweeney's point there about "abilty to cheer" did make me think about it. You may play to win the game, but it is just a game --- and certailnly trivial compared to the dog fighting allegations --- and there is room for people to make choices that make them more or less comfortable. It was pretty divided,like the numbers here, but *most* of us in the other thread acknowledged this is a personal decision and respected the other side.

 

[H.K.]

I don't think I'd be able to look my dogs in the eye.

I usually couldn't care less about a player's attitude, morals, etc. They are not people in my eyes anyway, just the stats they generate to earn me money.Vick is actually a unique story. You see, I let my dogs run my FF team in one league, so I don't think he'll be on my roster as a result. Just a little heads up to my CHUG brethren.

 

[tomarken]

I really don't understand this 'If I can't root for them, I won't draft them mentality.' I'm a huge Redskins fan and I absolutely hate the Dallas Cowboys. When I think of the great evils in this world, the Nazis, al quaeda, death squads in Somalia, and the Dallas Cowboys immediately come to mind. That's how much I absolutely hate this team.So what am I going to do, take all the cowgirls off my draft board? &%#@ that. As someone else in this thread already stated, YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME! I'll draft any scumbag/cowboy (redundant I know) if they're the next best available player on my board. And if I do have a scumbag(s) on my team, I'll just make light of the situation. If I had Randy McMichael on my team, for example, and he laid a goose egg one game, I'd probably say something like, 'Damn he sucks. Mrs. McMichael is going to have a rough night tonight.' Morality should have no bearing on who you draft. If it does, then you're not a shark, imo. You aren't marketing a real team here, it's fantasy.The only thing I worry about when drafting scumbags is the legal ramifications, and possible suspensions by the NFL.

Yeah, every year I end up with players I don't like, either because they're on a division rival, or they have a habit of running their mouth off, etc. It's never been a big deal - I definitely play to win, and like I said above that's still my strategy and I would still draft Vick if he fell to an appropriate spot in the draft. But I'd be much happier if he wasn't on my team, and if it's between him and someone else value-wise on draft day I'm definitely going with someone else, does that make sense? I'm not going to say that killing dogs is worse than beating your wife or whatever - at a certain point there are no varying degrees of scumbag, you're a scumbag if you do any of those things. But there's something especially disgusting and unusual (at least in my part of the country) about this Vick story that honestly makes me a little sick. And BTW, yes, I'm trampling all over "innocent until proven guilty" here, but I have a feeling that even if Vick is acquitted of these charges, many people, myself included, will never be able to dissociate him from these crimes.

 

[Dexter Manley]

You aren't marketing a real team here, it's fantasy.The only thing I worry about when drafting scumbags is the legal ramifications, and possible suspensions by the NFL.

This is how I approached it in the Vick Indicted thread that tomarken mentioned above. but mad sweeney's point there about "abilty to cheer" did make me think about it. You may play to win the game, but it is just a game --- and certailnly trivial compared to the dog fighting allegations --- and there is room for people to make choices that make them more or less comfortable. It was pretty divided,like the numbers here, but *most* of us in the other thread acknowledged this is a personal decision and respected the other side.

I understand the logic behind the 'If I can't cheer for them, I won't draft them' mentality. And I respect that, but I think this is a really dumb philosophy.For example, if you are a diehard Browns fan, do you take all of the Ravens and Steelers off your board, because you can't cheer for them?And with morality it gets even more complex. Where do you draw the line? Ok, Vick is off your board because he's a scumbag. Little is off your board because he killed somebody. Now, what about all the players who are wife beaters? Ok you take them off of your board too. Now what about the players with dui(s)? You see where I'm going with this?Can't these people draft Vick, root for him during the season, and then hope he gets hit by a bus after he leads their teams to a championship?

 

[BeTheMatch]

You aren't marketing a real team here, it's fantasy.The only thing I worry about when drafting scumbags is the legal ramifications, and possible suspensions by the NFL.

This is how I approached it in the Vick Indicted thread that tomarken mentioned above. but mad sweeney's point there about "abilty to cheer" did make me think about it. You may play to win the game, but it is just a game --- and certailnly trivial compared to the dog fighting allegations --- and there is room for people to make choices that make them more or less comfortable. It was pretty divided,like the numbers here, but *most* of us in the other thread acknowledged this is a personal decision and respected the other side.

I understand the logic behind the 'If I can't cheer for them, I won't draft them' mentality. And I respect that, but I think this is a really dumb philosophy.For example, if you are a diehard Browns fan, do you take all of the Ravens and Steelers off your board, because you can't cheer for them?And with morality it gets even more complex. Where do you draw the line? Ok, Vick is off your board because he's a scumbag. Little is off your board because he killed somebody. Now, what about all the players who are wife beaters? Ok you take them off of your board too. Now what about the players with dui(s)? You see where I'm going with this?Can't these people draft Vick, root for him during the season, and then hope he gets hit by a bus after he leads their teams to a championship?

It's dumb, but you respect it? Yeah, you're oozing respect. Why are you getting so worked up about how someone else plays a game? I hate Vick. I won' t have him on my team. Are there not plenty of other QBs I can take without giving up on winning?????

 

[thebestupsman]

morals, shmorals. If he can score fantasy points and help my team win then I have his back.

Brutis is my kind of man! CHAMPIONSHIP!

 

[Silver & Black]

What are these morals you speak of?

Seriously, if a player is not suspended and playing in the league, how can you not draft him if you can. Its not like you have to worry about him being a cancer in your locker room or anything.

 

[Stealthycat]

I won't root for thugs ......... I love the days when McMichael has zero catches, or when Ray Lewis's defense gives up 30+ points etc ...... LOVE IT

because I'm a FF player, the "win" in me wants to see my FF team's players excel - conflict of interest for me so no, I don't want thugs on my team

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Do they? Yep, and it doesnt effect my chances at winning at all.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think putting morality into the equation is naive, because you can be sure that a great many of the players you think are "moral" and "upstanding" are, in fact, not. They just haven't been caught and/or are better at covering their tracks. As an Eagles fan first and foremost, it pains me to think of Eli Manning or Ladell Betts or Terry Glenn playing well, but if I let my strong personal feelings interplay with my fantasy strategy, I would be like a lamb to slaughter.

 

[Kleck.]

I draft players for their stats. Not their character.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I think putting morality into the equation is naive, because you can be sure that a great many of the players you think are "moral" and "upstanding" are, in fact, not. They just haven't been caught and/or are better at covering their tracks. As an Eagles fan first and foremost, it pains me to think of Eli Manning or Ladell Betts or Terry Glenn playing well, but if I let my strong personal feelings interplay with my fantasy strategy, I would be like a lamb to slaughter.

Not quite true for me. In my case, the "moral" quotent has more to do about what they do on the field as a player around the game, and not so much anything away from the game.Like Michael Vick. Like Randy Moss. Like Simeon Rice. etc...

 

[Dexter Manley]

You aren't marketing a real team here, it's fantasy.The only thing I worry about when drafting scumbags is the legal ramifications, and possible suspensions by the NFL.

This is how I approached it in the Vick Indicted thread that tomarken mentioned above. but mad sweeney's point there about "abilty to cheer" did make me think about it. You may play to win the game, but it is just a game --- and certailnly trivial compared to the dog fighting allegations --- and there is room for people to make choices that make them more or less comfortable. It was pretty divided,like the numbers here, but *most* of us in the other thread acknowledged this is a personal decision and respected the other side.

I understand the logic behind the 'If I can't cheer for them, I won't draft them' mentality. And I respect that, but I think this is a really dumb philosophy.For example, if you are a diehard Browns fan, do you take all of the Ravens and Steelers off your board, because you can't cheer for them?And with morality it gets even more complex. Where do you draw the line? Ok, Vick is off your board because he's a scumbag. Little is off your board because he killed somebody. Now, what about all the players who are wife beaters? Ok you take them off of your board too. Now what about the players with dui(s)? You see where I'm going with this?Can't these people draft Vick, root for him during the season, and then hope he gets hit by a bus after he leads their teams to a championship?

It's dumb, but you respect it? Yeah, you're oozing respect. Why are you getting so worked up about how someone else plays a game? I hate Vick. I won' t have him on my team. Are there not plenty of other QBs I can take without giving up on winning?????

1) I'm respectful of you and everyone else who applies this philosophy when drafting. That doesn't mean the philosophy isn't bad/wrong/dumb/less than optimal (whichever one oozes the most respect).2) I'm not worked up. This is the shark pool last time I checked. We come here to gain the best knowledge and put together the most optimal strategy for drafting and playing in our ff leagues. Integrating morality into your draft board is sub-optimal, to say the least, unless you're choosing from 2 players who are basically ranked equally.

 

[Conqu'ering_Heroes]

Man, this is easy. If the guy can help you win, grab him. I'm always the guy who drafts Randy Moss and trades for TO and any CIN player. And I'm always the guy in the playoffs too!

Say LT gets a DUI the week before the draft. It's the tenth pick, you're up...get real, he'll still would go #1. However, you never know. As you've heard many times 'love no one, hate no one."

Who would you rather be? The winning owner with a 'bad' guy or the guy who has high morals and loses in fantasy? Go Bengals!

 

[phthalatemagic]

Only in extreme circumstances. I would never draft killers like Leonard Little or Ray Lewis. Although I applaud people that refuse to own Vick, even if the charges are true I don't think it would rise to the level of offense like Little or Lewis. I do think it is a good step forward to consciously erase from our memories people that do not deserve to be there, which is why I wish people would no longer speak of a former football playing runningback turned double murderer. Call it social moray enforcement if you wish, I think it's a good thing.

 

[mad sweeney]

I can and have refused to draft players based on morals. I love the game more than I love FF. One of the reasons I love FF is that it gives me something to root for in almost every single game on, which I have a great set up to take advantage of. I really, really do not rooting for guys I consider to be jerks. I hae never drafted TO, Moss, Vick or a variety of other players and so far it hasn't hurt me. I really really hate rooting for someone I don't like and so I don't want to cheer when TO scores. Thus he is never on my roster. But that's just me. The game is more important to me than FF. I can give up FF (not easily) but I could never give up my Sundays football games.

 

[Lash]

i just drafted Pacman and Odell Thurman back to back in a dynasty draft

Pacman was #1 Db in this league's scoring format last year (KR/PR bonuses) so i think i can buy and hold

although i think he is a THUG (all capital letters)

 

[The Man with the Plan]

Absolutely. Under no circumstances whatsoever will I draft players who I think suck. And white running backs.

 

[Heinz 57]

Helllz no. Only if the player is such a fool/loser/#####/waste of life that his behavior will impact his output (ie. get suspended or banned). Anyone with so called "morals" is at a severe disadvantage if they only draft "classy" players, since the best of the bunch are more often than not arrogant bastards.

 

[Edrondol]

I wouldn't draft Vick. But not because of his morals, but because he may not play. If I waste a draft pick on him and then he gets suspended, I'd be the only one to blame. Not touching him.

-Dave

 

[semaj33]

best reply I received from this question was when Jamal Lewis was going through his ordeal and I was calling him a "thug" to my friend in our Bible College Computer Lab....

Jamal was on my team, and we were just teasing back and forth, however I remember one of our worship leaders over hearing our conversation and saying, "I don't care if they beat their wife, do drugs or get arrested, as long as they get me 100 yards and a few TD's, I'll pray for em..."

Obviously he was just teasing, as were we...but it was something I will never forget...

that being said, I still own Jamal, and still voted yes to the question....Don't get me wrong, I love pulling for the underdog, and I love seeing God restore broken lives (as He did with mine) but as a general rule, I like owning players whom I enjoy watching succeed...

 

[fatness]

I only care about their ability and their availability.

My grandmother drafts for morals.

 

[moose162]

Only in extreme circumstances. I would never draft killers like Leonard Little or Ray Lewis. Although I applaud people that refuse to own Vick, even if the charges are true I don't think it would rise to the level of offense like Little or Lewis. I do think it is a good step forward to consciously erase from our memories people that do not deserve to be there, which is why I wish people would no longer speak of a former football playing runningback turned double murderer. Call it social moray enforcement if you wish, I think it's a good thing.

Because shanking a guy outside a nightclub is far worse than torturing animals unable to fight back. Yeah....I don't want a scrub like Vick on my team. I can win without him. And to those claiming they don't care about division rivals being on their team, get your heads out of your asses. We're not talking about guys' with big mouths like TO or Randy Moss, we're talking about someone as criminally psychotic as Michael Vick.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Because shanking a guy outside a nightclub is far worse than torturing animals unable to fight back. Yeah....

There doesn't have to be a large difference. There is a difference, and where that difference is - is the line that I have drawn between owning a guy and not.

 

[cobalt_27]

i just drafted Pacman and Odell Thurman back to back in a dynasty draftPacman was #1 Db in this league's scoring format last year (KR/PR bonuses) so i think i can buy and holdalthough i think he is a THUG (all capital letters)

Yes, I think you established that by typing in all capital letters.

 

[roadkill1292]

I only care about their ability and their availability.My grandmother drafts for morals.

 

[BeTheMatch]

Only in extreme circumstances. I would never draft killers like Leonard Little or Ray Lewis. Although I applaud people that refuse to own Vick, even if the charges are true I don't think it would rise to the level of offense like Little or Lewis. I do think it is a good step forward to consciously erase from our memories people that do not deserve to be there, which is why I wish people would no longer speak of a former football playing runningback turned double murderer. Call it social moray enforcement if you wish, I think it's a good thing.

Because shanking a guy outside a nightclub is far worse than torturing animals unable to fight back. Yeah....I don't want a scrub like Vick on my team. I can win without him. And to those claiming they don't care about division rivals being on their team, get your heads out of your asses. We're not talking about guys' with big mouths like TO or Randy Moss, we're talking about someone as criminally psychotic as Michael Vick.

Exactamundo!

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I don't care if a player sacrifices a chicken to Jobu in the pregame. Straight stats homie.

 

[coolnerd]

I will downgrade a player for morality or ethics, but will not ban him from a roster. My concerns are those with low morals/ethics will have issues that cause them to miss games or underperform. I would be much more likely not to employ this player on a real football, on a fantasy team I refuse to believe it displays an owner's character either way.

 

[Z-Dog]

You never really know which players are the good guys and which aren't, and no, I'm not going to research all these players and run background checks. Still, I think it's bad karma to benefit from bad guys. It's not a moral thing as much as that I'd rather my success not be built on the success of people I'd like to see punished and locked away. That said, there's not more than three or four players I would pass on.

 

[mad sweeney]

Only in extreme circumstances. I would never draft killers like Leonard Little or Ray Lewis. Although I applaud people that refuse to own Vick, even if the charges are true I don't think it would rise to the level of offense like Little or Lewis. I do think it is a good step forward to consciously erase from our memories people that do not deserve to be there, which is why I wish people would no longer speak of a former football playing runningback turned double murderer. Call it social moray enforcement if you wish, I think it's a good thing.

Because shanking a guy outside a nightclub is far worse than torturing animals unable to fight back. Yeah....I don't want a scrub like Vick on my team. I can win without him. And to those claiming they don't care about division rivals being on their team, get your heads out of your asses. We're not talking about guys' with big mouths like TO or Randy Moss, we're talking about someone as criminally psychotic as Michael Vick.

No matter how disgustingly sadistic you get killing an animal or even scores of animals, gutting 100 dogs and leaving them to die is still a lot less than killing a person. That distinction is huge. Killing an animal, no matter how or how many, is NOT murder. Human life and animal life are a far, far cry apart. Now, it may be very true that the person who kills animals in these ways is a much sicker man than a man who kills a human in a fight, or drunken driving or whatever. But the crime itself of killing animals vs killing people is very clearly not the same. I'm as big a dog lover as can be (escept yappy lap dogs) but a distinction has to be drawn between human life and animal life. To recap.Torture and kill dogs<killing a human but dog torturers/killers=sicker beings than a lot of muderers.

 

[Sylira21]

I voted yes, but it is a pretty low bar for me. I'm fine with jerks like Moss and TO. I think I've downgraded Ray Lewis enough that I've never drafted him, but whether that's really morals or not I don't know.

But this is...well, I own three dogs and the things I've heard and read just sicken me. Even if Vick "didn't know anything that was going on there", which seems preposterous to me, he bears a moral obligation for what happened at that house.

I personally think his career is done, stick a fork in it, gone. But if he beats the rap and plays, he won't be on my team. Ewww.

 

[Pipes]

I voted yes, but it is a pretty low bar for me. I'm fine with jerks like Moss and TO. I think I've downgraded Ray Lewis enough that I've never drafted him, but whether that's really morals or not I don't know.But this is...well, I own three dogs and the things I've heard and read just sicken me. Even if Vick "didn't know anything that was going on there", which seems preposterous to me, he bears a moral obligation for what happened at that house. I personally think his career is done, stick a fork in it, gone. But if he beats the rap and plays, he won't be on my team. Ewww.

 

[ukshane]

I'd rather lose with players I like than win with players I hate. I'll never have Michael Vick on my team again.

Couldn't agree more

 

[Micon]

I'd rather lose with players I like than win with players I hate. I'll never have Michael Vick on my team again.

Couldn't agree more

I couldnt disagree more. I play to win even if that means having a wife beater or child molester on my team. I couldnt care less what they do off the field, as long as they produce on the field.

 

[tomarken]

I'd rather lose with players I like than win with players I hate. I'll never have Michael Vick on my team again.

Couldn't agree more

I couldnt disagree more. I play to win even if that means having a wife beater or child molester on my team. I could care less what they do off the field, as long as they produce on the field.

You could?

 

[Micon]

I'd rather lose with players I like than win with players I hate. I'll never have Michael Vick on my team again.

Couldn't agree more

I couldnt disagree more. I play to win even if that means having a wife beater or child molester on my team. I could care less what they do off the field, as long as they produce on the field.

You could?

sorry typo, still drunk from last nightfixed now

 

[tomarken]

Pretty simple to me. If you are not doing your absolute best to win each and every week, you are cheating not only yourself, but every other owner in your league. The spirit of sportsmanship and competition to your friends should compel you to field the best team possible. I don't want to win if the cost of that winning means someone was a soft roll because they picked the All Moral Team, as if you could figure out who was a decent human being or just a scumbag with a good PR team anyway. You don't just owe yourself something when you play, you owe every other owner in that league to go down swinging each and every time out.

Fielding a competitive team, and avoiding a specific player for personal reasons, are not mutually exclusive.

 

[az_prof]

I really don't understand this 'If I can't root for them, I won't draft them mentality.' I'm a huge Redskins fan and I absolutely hate the Dallas Cowboys. When I think of the great evils in this world, the Nazis, al quaeda, death squads in Somalia, and the Dallas Cowboys immediately come to mind. That's how much I absolutely hate this team.So what am I going to do, take all the cowgirls off my draft board? &%#@ that. As someone else in this thread already stated, YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME! I'll draft any scumbag/cowboy (redundant I know) if they're the next best available player on my board. And if I do have a scumbag(s) on my team, I'll just make light of the situation. If I had Randy McMichael on my team, for example, and he laid a goose egg one game, I'd probably say something like, 'Damn he sucks. Mrs. McMichael is going to have a rough night tonight.' Morality should have no bearing on who you draft. If it does, then you're not a shark, imo. You aren't marketing a real team here, it's fantasy.The only thing I worry about when drafting scumbags is the legal ramifications, and possible suspensions by the NFL.

The distinction is between players who have clearly breached moral and ethical rules, and a player that is hated simply because of a rivalry. It may be similar in terms of the difficulty of rooting for them, but when is a valid dislike and the other is irrational and simply emotional.

 

[az_prof]

Pretty simple to me. If you are not doing your absolute best to win each and every week, you are cheating not only yourself, but every other owner in your league. The spirit of sportsmanship and competition to your friends should compel you to field the best team possible. I don't want to win if the cost of that winning means someone was a soft roll because they picked the All Moral Team, as if you could figure out who was a decent human being or just a scumbag with a good PR team anyway. You don't just owe yourself something when you play, you owe every other owner in that league to go down swinging each and every time out.

This assumes that the so called "All Moral" team is necessarily worse. Some real professional teams are learning that lack of virtue can cost a team competitive advantage. If Vick misses games this year as I expect because of his behavior, then that will cost his team. The Love Boat incident for Minnesota a few years ago undoubtedly cost the team on the field as it destroyed team morale. As someone else said, drafting a team of good guys is not necessarily at odds with drafting a winning team. To say that it must is the "either/or" fallacy, which presents two alternatives as the only two possible, when in fact there are more.

 

[j3r3m3y]

I consider the character of a player, but only in regards to how it might limit his performance or the overall team performance. I downgrade players like TO, but it has nothing to do with my not liking his character (which I do not).

It has more to do with his increased chance of throwing a tantrum and not playing, getting benched or being such a cancer in the clubhouse that the team suffers.

That being said, if there is a point where I consider TO to be the best value on the board, I draft him.

I know it is the wrong sport, but if there were a Barry Bonds in football (I cant think of an example but I am sure they are out there), and by that I mean a player who by all accounts is a complete jackass but still performs, I would have him on my FF team in a heartbeat.

Just win baby!

 

[Jason Wood]

I'd rather lose with players I like than win with players I hate. I'll never have Michael Vick on my team again.

This is exactly what I was talking about...the fallacy of celebrity. We tend to assign character and morality traits on famous people we don't know well AT ALL based on whether they are providing us joy or entertainment. Just because you presume you only root for "good guys", the demographics of the NFL and our society would paint a different picture.Do you care if people cheat on their wives?Do you care if they use drugs?Do you care if they're violent?Do you care if they have odd sexual proclivities?To think that many of the sports "heroes" you DO feel good about rooting for aren't doing all of those things and a LOT more is naive, at best. You're not alone, we're all guilty of it. But the reality is, unless you're intimately familiar with these guys personal lives, you're kidding yourself to think somehow removing Mike Vick from the equation ensures you have guys worthy of your respect and admiration.

 

[phthalatemagic]

You're not alone, we're all guilty of it. But the reality is, unless you're intimately familiar with these guys personal lives, you're kidding yourself to think somehow removing Mike Vick from the equation ensures you have guys worthy of your respect and admiration.

The guy can only control what he knows, a team minus Mike Vick is a team minus one bad guy (according to whoever thinks Vick is a bad guy)